SC junks petition against attempt to muzzle media

MANILA, Philippines–The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by several media organizations questioning a Court of Appeals decision that affirmed the legality of a circular issued  by the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) warning the publishing, broadcasting of news and commentaries which are considered subversive against the Arroyo administration.

In 2006, the NTC issued Memorandum Circular 01-03-2006 which warned about airing or publishing anti-Arroyo news during the height of then President Gloria Arroyo’s declaration of the State of Emergency.

The circular was questioned before the Court of Appeals but the petition was dismissed by the appeals court saying that it is not the proper remedy because the circular was issued by the NTC in its exercise of its quasi-legislative functions or its rule-making power.

The appeals court said it can review judicial and ministerial functions but not an agency’s legislative or quasi-legislative functions.

The ruling prompted the Philippine Press Institute, National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, UP College of Mass Communications and other media personalities and organizations filed the petition before the High Court.

“…petitioners respectfully pray that… a writ of prohibition be issued enjoining respondents and their successors in interest from making public pronouncements, warnings or threats to the press that they are being monitored, or that they may face administrative or criminal sanctions if they publish or broadcast speech that respondents consider as ‘tending’ to be rebellious or subversive or seditious,” the petition stated.

Petitioners said the appellate court committed an error of judgment in dismissing their case since the issue involves national interest.

They pointed out that the appellate court had admitted that such warnings can be construed as a “censure” to the exercise of the universal rights of free speech.

“In agreeing with petitioners that the acts of the respondents constituted unlawful prior restraints, but at the same time dismissing the petition ‘for lack of merit’, the Court of Appeals radically departed from the usual course of judicial proceedings as to warrant the exercise of this Court’s power of supervision,” the petition stated.

But the high court, in its recent ruling, said the media organizations failed to file the petition on time “and therefore, the question decision [of the Court of Appeals] had become final and no longer subject to review.”